Local Smoking Ban

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Local Smoking Ban

I didn't imply it, I said it outright! And what you believe about asthma and allergic reactions is irrelevant to this topic.

Nothing you posted indicates asthma and allergies are not agravated by exposure to second hand smoke. If you want some sources for second-hand smoke and asthma, I can provide.

Adults with asthma:
http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/158/1/170

Children with asthma:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/23/1665

You have given no evidence that asthma is not exacerbated by second hand smoking, so I'm not sure why you attacked me about this rather than just requesting evidence.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Local Smoking Ban

And you have completely ignored the studies of bartenders I linked to (who, I'm sure you'd agree, encounter much higher levels of ETS than most people) which found no health effect of ETS.

I read the link. Interesting study. But you either didn't read it yourself or chose to jump to conclusions about it. What the link says is that exposure levels are lower than previous studies indicate. It says absolutely nothing about the health EFFECTS of that exposure. RSP levels were below recommended levels, but since that's not the only factor involved in second-hand smoke health effects (cigarette smoke is not the same as dust), it's hard to conclude anything from that. I didn't respond about this link previously because it doesn't make the argument that second-hand smoking has no health effect. If there's health effect information in the full article that this link is based upon, feel free to follow that up with a new link.

 

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Nothing you posted indicates asthma and allergies are not agravated by exposure to second hand smoke. If you want some sources for second-hand smoke and asthma, I can provide.

I never attacked you! If my tone offended you I apologize. I really don't try to be mean to anyone on this forum.

I simply stated this wasn't about asthma. Lots of things aggravate asthma besudes tobacco smoke - ozone, car exhaust, charcoal grills, etc. I haven't seen asthma cited as the main reason for the smoking bans being enacted, they always mention lung cancer, heart disease, etc. People w/ asthma know to stay away from bars, just as those w/ severe peanut allergies know to stay away from the ballpark.

I've seen some anti-smoking sites while googling for this thread that claim (w/o evidence) that second-hand smoke was a leading cause of death among children. The hysteria this issue brings out is mind-boggling.

I'll respond more to this thread tomorrow if it's still alive, I'm going out to see one of the best bands I've come across this year - Those Legendary Shack Shakers.

 

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by WildCat
I simply stated this wasn't about asthma. Lots of things aggravate asthma besudes tobacco smoke - ozone, car exhaust, charcoal grills, etc. I haven't seen asthma cited as the main reason for the smoking bans being enacted, they always mention lung cancer, heart disease, etc. People w/ asthma know to stay away from bars, just as those w/ severe peanut allergies know to stay away from the ballpark.

It hasn't been largely portrayed as being about asthma, but as someone with asthma, I can tell you that it really is a good reason, and it's the primary reason I support the ban in California. So maybe it should be about asthma. I'm sure there's plenty of hyperbole about second hand smoke, but don't let that stop you from paying attention to the real arguments. Ann Coulter doesn't nullify all conservative arguments just because she's an absolute nutjob, for example.

Staying away from bars is easy for me, but if I go to a restraunt outside of California, I never know what the exposure will be like. My asthma and alergies are relatively mild now (I don't get serious attacks), but it used to be pretty bad when I was a kid.

Cheers, and enjoy your concert.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Local Smoking Ban

And people from outside who do not smoke will come to Toledo to get away from the smokers.

Are you saying that absolutely no restaurants surrounding Toledo have instituted a no smoking policy or at least a no smoking area?

These sort of smoking bans are generally an attempt to protect non-smokers. Second-hand smoke is bad for your health.

And, non-smokers don't know this when going into a restaurant that doesn't have a restricted smoking policy?

These regulations ensure that non-smokers will not be exposed to it when they go to public gathering places.

They aren't public gathering places—they're private businesses!

You can drink without posing a threat to others,

You wouldn't know it to see the self-righters (my word for do-gooder conservatives) in this area. Ever since we passed the alcohol referenda, whenever someone wants to open a restaurant or bar that serves alcohol they're right there at the County Commissioners meeting urging them to rezone the land so they can't open.

 

[shanek]

i dont care about the health risks of second hand smoke in bars and restaurants

i care about going home smelling like an ashtray or smoke in my face while i'm trying to eat

So don't patronize restaurants that don't impose restrictions on smoking. Vote with your dollars.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Local Smoking Ban

Originally posted by shanek
Are you saying that absolutely no restaurants surrounding Toledo have instituted a no smoking policy or at least a no smoking area?

I'm saying that predictions of a loss of business from smoking bans are premature and unfounded. I'm also saying that for people who really mind cigarette smoke, non-smoking sections don't compare to smoking-free restraunts. Toledo's restraunts and bars will do fine.

Ever since we passed the alcohol referenda, whenever someone wants to open a restaurant or bar that serves alcohol they're right there at the County Commissioners meeting urging them to rezone the land so they can't open.

That's unfortunate. Zoning laws can only make sense as part of long-term urban planning, using them to accomplish short-term goals like this is almost certain to cause more problems than it solves. Of course, I don't really think they're solving a real problem anyways...

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Local Smoking Ban

I'm also saying that for people who really mind cigarette smoke, non-smoking sections don't compare to smoking-free restraunts.

I didn't say no smoking areas. There are restaurants that have resitrcted smoking anywhere in the building. Are you saying there are none of these around Toledo?

Answer the question this time.

Of course, I don't really think they're solving a real problem anyways...

Then why do you think smoking bans are solving anything?

 

[KelvinG]

I'm very happy with the no smoking rules we have up here. The notion of polluting a public establishment with toxic fumes is just plain stupid.
No smoking rules just make sense, plain and simple.

 

[shanek]

I'm very happy with the no smoking rules we have up here. The notion of polluting a public establishment with toxic fumes is just plain stupid.

But again, we're talking about a private business, not a public establishment!

 

[KelvinG]

But again, we're talking about a private business, not a public establishment!

Sorry, this was argued extensively in another thread a few months back and I never the bought the private enterprise nonsense back then and I don't now.

I know what your thoughts are on this one shanek, I just don't agree.

So, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you can agree to that.

 

[Bjorn]

Shane,

I suggest you and I open a bar in Toledo, called 'Smokers Only'.

We make it clear to possible employees that it doesn't matter if they smoke or not, but they have to accept that they will be inhaling (first hand or second hand) cigarette smoke if they are to be employed in our private enterprise.

We make a very visible sign outside telling possible customers that this is a place where smoking, although not a must, is certainly allowed, and that the place is established to cater for those who like to smoke and drink at the same time.

You ban-smoking-in-restaurants people here, give us some good reasons why we shouldn't be allowed to open such a place?

Not that it is any of your business, but I don't smoke myself.

 

[shanek]

I suggest you and I open a bar in Toledo, called 'Smokers Only'.

Actually, around here there's a chain of convenience stores called "Smoker Friendly." I wonder if people think we should ban smoking in there?

Not that it is any of your business, but I don't smoke myself.

Nor do I.

 

[Attrayant]

Originally posted by shanek

But again, we're talking about a private business, not a public establishment!

Private ownership does not mean you get to control everything that goes on behind your doors. Child labor laws, food preparation and storage guidelines, requiring fire exits, overtime pay, handicapped access guidelines, fire codes (maximum occupancy), the list goes on.

It would be wonderful if businesses that were openly racist/sexist/homophobic would be driven out of business by a disgusted public, but that's just not going to happen. Thus we have brought into existance certain non-discrimination laws. You could suggest to blacks/women/gays that they find friendly establishments for their patronage, but one or two establishments are not going to be the first to make such a change, lest they lose business from their racist/sexist/homophobic customers to other businesses that opted not to become black/woman/gay friendly. Enacting an ordinance that requires all businesses to abide by certain guidelines insures that all businesses are treated with the same rules. So with a blanket ban, no business looses customers, and new customers will come out to enjoy smoke-free eating & entertainment.

Smoking was banned in Los Angeles some years ago, and businesses are doing just fine. In fact, it seems like there are lots of potential patrons who previously stayed away from bars & clubs because of the smoke.

I am not asthmatic nor do I have any other respiratory conditions, as far as I know. But for some reason a single puff of smoke inhaled by me from, say, a guy walking down the street in front of me who just happens to be exhaling while I am inhaling causes me to get nauseated and take evasive action in order to find some non-polluted air to breath. To me, this is almost an assault. Granted it's unintentional but never the less my body reacts as if it's being assaulted by toxic gasses.

Looking at it in this light, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

 

[Bjorn]

It would be wonderful if businesses that were openly racist/sexist/homophobic would be driven out of business by a disgusted public, but that's just not going to happen.

Racist/sexist/homophobic businesses have one thing in common: They want to lock some people out.

The 'Smokers Only Bar' will welcome all patrons, as long as they accept that the owners have allowed smoking inside. Much like a gay bar that allows straights: If you get nauseated by seeing men kiss each other, the easy solution is to stay outside.

But for some reason a single puff of smoke inhaled by me from, say, a guy walking down the street in front of me who just happens to be exhaling while I am inhaling causes me to get nauseated and take evasive action in order to find some non-polluted air to breath. To me, this is almost an assault. Granted it's unintentional but never the less my body reacts as if it's being assaulted by toxic gasses.

And this, of course, gives you a very good point if you want to prohibit smoking on sidewalks, or in bus stations, or in the ballpark, or anywhere else where others cannot chose another place to stay (there is only one superbowl, and "If you don't like it here, go see it somewhere else" doesn't work well).

Looking at it in this light, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

Yep. But keep your nose out of my bar if you can't take the smoke: That way, your nose is safely out of the way. It's our bar you know.

 

[Attrayant]

Racist/sexist/homophobic businesses have one thing in common: They want to lock some people out.

This is not quite an accurate representation of the real world. Racist/sexist/homophobic businesses don't want to be labeled as such, and will claim that all are welcome. But clearly the general atmosphere will be unfriendly and unacommodating if you are not the preferred type of customer. Same goes for smokey bars. All customers are welcome, but it's a hostile environment for many non-smoking people who don't have a choice to go elsewhere.

A "smokers only/friendly" bar is a good idea. I believe they would be in the extreme minority if they were to start opening up. Of course we won't know this until they have some reason to start opening up. The way things are now, all bars are smoker friendly unless there is legi

And this, of course, gives you a very good point if you want to prohibit smoking on sidewalks, or in bus stations, or in the ballpark, or...

I said that I was able to find clean air to breathe by taking evasive manuvers. This is easy to do walking down the street, but next to impossible to do in a smoke-filled nightclub.

But keep your nose out of my bar if you can't take the smoke: That way, your nose is safely out of the way. It's our bar you know.

By that reasoning, I need to keep my stomach out of your restaurant if I don't want to eat e-coli tainted meat or hair in my salads. That way we won't need legislation requiring proper food handling proceedures and hairnets.

 

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Bjorn
The 'Smokers Only Bar' will welcome all patrons, as long as they accept that the owners have allowed smoking inside. Much like a gay bar that allows straights: If you get nauseated by seeing men kiss each other, the easy solution is to stay outside.

The reason this argument doesn't work on a legal level is because of employees. Yes, you're right, customers are completely free to patronize whatever establishments cater to their desires. But workers looking for employment don't have so much liberty, and the courts (at least in California) have recognized this. As a prospective employee, being asthetically disgusted by men kissing isn't comparable to being physically nauseated by second hand smoke. Strong libertarians may not agree with these sort of equal-opportunity employment laws, but that's still the way things stand in much of the US.

 

[shanek]

Private ownership does not mean you get to control everything that goes on behind your doors.

If it's a legal activity, it does. And smoking is a legal activity.

[massively fallacious argument excised]

Looking at it in this light, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

Even if I'm in a boxing ring with you?

 

[Tony]

Im still trying to figure out why some people support a smoking ban, but oppose the Patriot act.

 

[Ziggurat]

Im still trying to figure out why some people support a smoking ban, but oppose the Patriot act.

No you're not. You're not trying to figure that out at all. You're trying to see if you can trap an opponent by trying to force them into a contradiction, hoping to make supporters of popular smoking bans look like supporters of the much-less popular Patriot act because you don't like smoking bans. But there is no contradiction other than in your own mind. You're not actually trying to understand at all.

Smoking is not a fundamental constitutional right, and nothing in the constitution protects your ability to smoke. The Patriot act can be used to deprive citizens of constitutional rights. The two situations are fundamentally different, and no amount of posturing on your part is going to change that.